There is a riverside pathway near me. I don't use it myself, however an elderly couple I know often use it. They regularly invest in packs of tacks, and drawing pins
You're expected to dodge out of their way - and I've been accused of being selfish for not doing do by one poster. Even if I was disabled, I'd apparently still be selfish if I didn't move out of their way.
I kid you not. The arrogance and sense of entitlement amongst some cyclists is breathtaking.
There is a riverside pathway near me. I don't use it myself, however an elderly couple I know often use it. They regularly invest in packs of tacks, and drawing pins
I said it was annoying, not dangerous. I've been hit by 2 cyclists in recent years, once on the pavement and once at a zebra crossing, plus a number of other near misses. Yes I know getting hit by a car would be more dangerous, but that hasn't happened to me. I'm not sure why that makes me paranoid TBH.
I said "why are people getting so het up about it", I was referring to the general tenor of the thread, not you in particular. Incidentally, I've been hit by no cyclists in the last 10 years, as driver or pedestrian, whereas my cycling companion was knocked off her bike last year by a stupid and potentially killer car driver doing an out of the blue U-turn right into us. We need to look at the general situation though, rather than particular incidents.
I appreciate what D@ve is saying, but it in no way excuses dangerous and reckless riding by cyclists on pavements.
It certainly doesn't, but I still think some people are worrying unduly about the wrong thing. It's the 100-fold greater danger from killer car and lorry drivers that we should all be getting worked up about, yet there seem to be more threads complaining about the odd one or two killer cyclists each year.
I was crossing the road at a zebra crossing. Two lanes of cars stopped for us; a cyclist riding on the road, but alongside the pavement, decided he just wasn't going to stop - despite me standing directly in front of him. Whether he was in a cycle lane I don't know, and it's irrelevant anyway.
The road from Kingston to Hampton Court isn't a towpath, as it's about 20 yards or so from the river for most of the distance. It's about 10 feet wide, with a concrete (maybe) surface.
This happened to me in Leeds a few months ago (cyclists in Leeds seem to be a special breed of idiots, or at least most of those whom I have encountered). The lights were at red (for the traffic) and all of the pedestrians were crossing (near the station). One moronic cyclist, however, decided that despite the fact that he was on the road and should have stopped like all the rest if the road users, he would instead carry on, weaving dangerously in between the crowd if people going across the road. He got close enough for me to say something (which would not have been complimentary!), but instead I just glared at him and carried on as I wanted to get my train, not engage in a p***ing contest ...
On the other hand, when with my other half in the car, we often encounter cyclists in the Lakes and they are almost always polite, courteous and good road users.
There is a riverside pathway near me. I don't use it myself, however an elderly couple I know often use it. They regularly invest in packs of tacks, and drawing pins
Indeed, so what was the point in you saying how green cycling is in a debate about cyclists who are irresponsible? You appeared to be saying we should cut them some slack because of their low emissions.
I read through the thread. I read people generalise in a negative fashion about cyclists when the thread is about a specific incident in a specific place and with presumably some specific cyclists. I point out cyclists are an overall benefit relative to them being motorists in that specific place which is as is usual a specific city. So on the one hand we have a few injuries and worried pedestrians and on the other we have additional cancers and children between 10 and 18 growing up with permanent damage to their lungs from traffic fumes from badly maintained diesel vehicles. It was a post about priorities and addressing complaints to relevant authorities.
How much detail and jusification do I need to post for you. I can drill down further if you wish into my motives which I had really thought self evident.
There is a riverside pathway near me. I don't use it myself, however an elderly couple I know often use it. They regularly invest in packs of tacks, and drawing pins
There is a riverside pathway near me. I don't use it myself, however an elderly couple I know often use it. They regularly invest in packs of tacks, and drawing pins
how odd. if a person causes offence or accident, we usually blame the individual, not one/any of the groups they might belong to. its would be pretty unacceptable to attempt to hurt 'the elderly' because one tripped you up with their walking stick...
In 4 years from 2010 to 2013, 14 pedestrians were killed by cyclists... only one of which, apparently, was on the pavement. In the same period, 1,400 pedestrians were killed on the roads but not by cyclists.
As pedestrians are 100 times more likely to be killed not by a cyclist, and even on the pavement at least 34 times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than a cyclist, why are people getting so het up about it anyway?
Paranoia!
So we've switched from cyclists being a danger to pedestrians on footpaths to them getting killed by motor vehicles on roads instead, what a deflect.
Without further distracting the topic is the 1400 figure down to the motorist's fault or just a total regardless?
I read through the thread. I read people generalise in a negative fashion about cyclists when the thread is about a specific incident in a specific place and with presumably some specific cyclists. I point out cyclists are an overall benefit relative to them being motorists in that specific place which is as is usual a specific city. So on the one hand we have a few injuries and worried pedestrians and on the other we have additional cancers and children between 10 and 18 growing up with permanent damage to their lungs from traffic fumes from badly maintained diesel vehicles. It was a post about priorities and addressing complaints to relevant authorities.
How much detail and jusification do I need to post for you. I can drill down further if you wish into my motives which I had really thought self evident.
None of which has any relevance to the thread subject which isn't about cyclists in general but irresponsible cyclists. Cyclists can be planet friendly without being selfish and dangerous.
I said "why are people getting so het up about it", I was referring to the general tenor of the thread, not you in particular. Incidentally, I've been hit by no cyclists in the last 10 years, as driver or pedestrian, whereas my cycling companion was knocked off her bike last year by a stupid and potentially killer car driver doing an out of the blue U-turn right into us. We need to look at the general situation though, rather than particular incidents.
It certainly doesn't, but I still think some people are worrying unduly about the wrong thing. It's the 100-fold greater danger from killer car and lorry drivers that we should all be getting worked up about, yet there seem to be more threads complaining about the odd one or two killer cyclists each year.
Ah okay.
Yes I agree with you that worrying about the danger of it is probably OTT, however my point still stands, there is a big difference between finding something annoying and something dangerous. If a cyclist crashes into me, they will more than likely come worse off, the same couldn't be said for everyone though.
So we've switched from cyclists being a danger to pedestrians on footpaths to them getting killed by motor vehicles on roads instead, what a deflect.
Without further distracting the topic is the 1400 figure down to the motorist's fault or just a total regardless?
Not really deflecting, just trying to put the relative danger to pedestrians into perspective, and trying to work out whose fault it is won't alter that. Being killed by a cyclist on the pavement is much less likely than being killed by lightning in the UK, or about twice more likely overall as being killed by lightning (47 deaths in 25 years).
Near Kingston bridge their is a place where the Boats go to Richmond & Hampton Court, its cleary marked "Walk your cycle" but is of course completely ignored, & of course no one enforces it. If you challenge anyone you just get abuse.
You should see what they done from Kingston Bridge to Walton-On-Thames, they made a cycling pathway on a shared pavement with the pedestrians. But the lycra briade won't use it.
You should see what they done from Kingston Bridge to Walton-On-Thames, they made a cycling pathway on a shared pavement with the pedestrians. But the lycra briade won't use it.
None of which has any relevance to the thread subject which isn't about cyclists in general but irresponsible cyclists. Cyclists can be planet friendly without being selfish and dangerous.
Yes I agree. It would have been better had you chipped in a bit earlier, pointed this out, and saved all these posts.
Not really deflecting, just trying to put the relative danger to pedestrians into perspective, and trying to work out whose fault it is won't alter that. Being killed by a cyclist on the pavement is much less likely than being killed by lightning in the UK, or about twice more likely overall as being killed by lightning (47 deaths in 25 years).
See you're going on about being killed again, does being injured by cyclists not count?
I've seen two pedestrian accidents here in town both due to lycra clad cyclists bombing along the road then launching themselves into the pavement via the dropped kerb at the lights. One involved a kid about 12 and the other an elderly lady. Both were knocked flying. I shouldn't suppose the elderly lady escaped uninjured- probably left in pain since, and the kid ended up under the cyclist and his bike and was bleeding. BOTH occasions the cyclists started on the pedestrians and the one who had hit the kid buggered off with his bicycle. I saw an ambulance for the old girl pulled up a little later when I was coming back from the bank.
It was disgraceful. I've read in the papers on occasion stories about motorists and cyclists, and I'm afraid I tend to err with the motorist every time now.
See you're going on about being killed again, does being injured by cyclists not count?
Well yes, and the figures are considerably higher, in roughly similar proportions, as you would expect. But obviously a car or lorry is more likely to kill than injure, compared to a bike, isn't that obvious?
Pedestrian deaths is a more accurate figure though as nearly all of them are reported and included in the stats whereas that isn't the case for injuries (e.g. my cycling companion was injured by a car driver but it was not reported). I think injury estimates are included in the links I gave though, if you are interested in those numbers.
Comments
pair of idiots.
i`d send them the vet bills.
Try the footpath then
I said "why are people getting so het up about it", I was referring to the general tenor of the thread, not you in particular. Incidentally, I've been hit by no cyclists in the last 10 years, as driver or pedestrian, whereas my cycling companion was knocked off her bike last year by a stupid and potentially killer car driver doing an out of the blue U-turn right into us. We need to look at the general situation though, rather than particular incidents.
It certainly doesn't, but I still think some people are worrying unduly about the wrong thing. It's the 100-fold greater danger from killer car and lorry drivers that we should all be getting worked up about, yet there seem to be more threads complaining about the odd one or two killer cyclists each year.
This happened to me in Leeds a few months ago (cyclists in Leeds seem to be a special breed of idiots, or at least most of those whom I have encountered). The lights were at red (for the traffic) and all of the pedestrians were crossing (near the station). One moronic cyclist, however, decided that despite the fact that he was on the road and should have stopped like all the rest if the road users, he would instead carry on, weaving dangerously in between the crowd if people going across the road. He got close enough for me to say something (which would not have been complimentary!), but instead I just glared at him and carried on as I wanted to get my train, not engage in a p***ing contest ...
On the other hand, when with my other half in the car, we often encounter cyclists in the Lakes and they are almost always polite, courteous and good road users.
What happens when some toddler falls over?
I read through the thread. I read people generalise in a negative fashion about cyclists when the thread is about a specific incident in a specific place and with presumably some specific cyclists. I point out cyclists are an overall benefit relative to them being motorists in that specific place which is as is usual a specific city. So on the one hand we have a few injuries and worried pedestrians and on the other we have additional cancers and children between 10 and 18 growing up with permanent damage to their lungs from traffic fumes from badly maintained diesel vehicles. It was a post about priorities and addressing complaints to relevant authorities.
How much detail and jusification do I need to post for you. I can drill down further if you wish into my motives which I had really thought self evident.
I hope you did the good deed and reported them?
how odd. if a person causes offence or accident, we usually blame the individual, not one/any of the groups they might belong to. its would be pretty unacceptable to attempt to hurt 'the elderly' because one tripped you up with their walking stick...
So we've switched from cyclists being a danger to pedestrians on footpaths to them getting killed by motor vehicles on roads instead, what a deflect.
Without further distracting the topic is the 1400 figure down to the motorist's fault or just a total regardless?
Ah okay.
Yes I agree with you that worrying about the danger of it is probably OTT, however my point still stands, there is a big difference between finding something annoying and something dangerous. If a cyclist crashes into me, they will more than likely come worse off, the same couldn't be said for everyone though.
Not really deflecting, just trying to put the relative danger to pedestrians into perspective, and trying to work out whose fault it is won't alter that. Being killed by a cyclist on the pavement is much less likely than being killed by lightning in the UK, or about twice more likely overall as being killed by lightning (47 deaths in 25 years).
You should see what they done from Kingston Bridge to Walton-On-Thames, they made a cycling pathway on a shared pavement with the pedestrians. But the lycra briade won't use it.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/new-pavementscycle-lanes-in-walton-on-thames-are
I posted in there, and I work along the effected road, whose trade is being badly effected.
That's your interpretation.
Yes I agree. It would have been better had you chipped in a bit earlier, pointed this out, and saved all these posts.
It was disgraceful. I've read in the papers on occasion stories about motorists and cyclists, and I'm afraid I tend to err with the motorist every time now.
Well yes, and the figures are considerably higher, in roughly similar proportions, as you would expect. But obviously a car or lorry is more likely to kill than injure, compared to a bike, isn't that obvious?
Pedestrian deaths is a more accurate figure though as nearly all of them are reported and included in the stats whereas that isn't the case for injuries (e.g. my cycling companion was injured by a car driver but it was not reported). I think injury estimates are included in the links I gave though, if you are interested in those numbers.